|
|
|
NOTE!
This is a real-time comments system. As such, it's also a
free speech zone within guidelines set forth on the Post
Comments page. Opinions expressed here may or may not
reflect those of KeepAndBearArms staff, members, or
any other living person besides the one who posted them.
Please keep that in mind. We ask that all who post
comments assure that they adhere to our Inclusion
Policy, but there's a bad apple in every
bunch, and we have no control over bigots and
other small-minded people. Thank you. --KeepAndBearArms.com
|
The
Below Comments Relate to this Newslink:
MI: Warren moves to ban sale or possession of flamethrowers
Submitted by:
Mark A. Taff
Website: http://www.marktaff.com
|
There
is 1 comment
on this story
Post Comments | Read Comments
|
Warren Mayor Jim Fouts has no problem with the second amendment right to bear arms.
He just wants to extinguish any chance to publicly own flamethrowers in his city before a small spark can become a full-blown blaze: literally and figuratively.
After seeing media reports about a Warren-based company that is now producing flamethrowers available for public purchase, he quickly proposed a resolution at the Aug. 11 City Council meeting that would ban the storage, use and possession of flamethrowers in the city of Warren.
The first reading of the resolution passed unanimously.
|
| Comment by:
-none-
(8/21/2015)
|
| bad time with fire season and with birthright citizenship combined with horrific liberal schools/schooling: too many idiots and people with no common sense or real ties to the American Way of life. |
|
|
| QUOTES
TO REMEMBER |
| For, in principle, there is no difference between a law prohibiting the wearing of concealed arms, and a law forbidding the wearing such as are exposed; and if the former be unconstitutional, the latter must be so likewise. But it should not be forgotten, that it is not only a part of the right that is secured by the constitution; it is the right entire and complete, as it existed at the adoption of the constitution; and if any portion of that right be impaired, immaterial how small the part may be, and immaterial the order of time at which it be done, it is equally forbidden by the constitution. [Bliss vs. Commonwealth, 12 Ky. (2 Litt.) 90, at 92, and 93, 13 Am. Dec. 251 (1822) |
|
|
